Yesterday, I explained that Democrats have nominated an anti-white hate-monger to challenge Republican Pete Sessions in Texas’s 32nd Congressional District. Today, I’m highlighting another extremist Democrat in Texas, Gina Ortiz Jones, who finished first in a five-way primary, with 42% of the vote and then defeated Rick Trevino in the May runoff, to challenge Republican Rep. Will Hurd in the 23rd District.
This is one of the most competitive districts in the country, and has changed hands five times between Republicans and Democrats in the past 25 years. Hurd, a former CIA officer and the only black Republican member of Congress from Texas, won the seat in 2014 with only a 2,500-vote margin over the Democrat incumbent, and was re-elected in 2016 with a margin of only 3,000 votes. In a mid-term where Democrats are energized by anti-Trump mania, Hurd faces a tough fight, and Democrats have poured more than $1 million into the Jones campaign.
Fortunately for Republicans, however, Jones is way out of step with the values of this largely rural district, which stretches all the way from the suburbs of San Antonio in the east to El Paso in the west. The district is 55% Hispanic, and Jones has made a point of using her mother’s maiden name, with the slogan “One of Us, Fighting For Us” in her campaign.
Except she’s not Hispanic. Her mother immigrated from the Philippines and her father (who never married her mother) was a white drug addict. While she’s using “Ortiz” to play the identity-politics game with Texas voters, however, she’s using a lesbian-feminist message to solicit support nationally from Trump-haters, promising to become the “first Filipina-American and first out-lesbian to represent Texas in Congress, and she’ll be the first woman to represent her district.“ She has been endorsed by all the usual suspects of left-wing extremism, including pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood and Emily’s List, pro-homosexual groups like Equality PAC, Human Rights Campaign and the LGBT Victory Fund, and the anti-Israel JStreetPAC, as well as the Feminist Majority, People for the American Way and the AFL-CIO. Her agenda includes socialized medicine, taxpayer funding for abortion, gun control, amnesty for illegal aliens, and every other issue you might expect from someone who attended elite Boston University.
Even without all her other baggage, her support for abortion might be enough to defeat Jones. When I say this district is 55% Hispanic, some Republicans might roll their eyes and write it off as a lost cause, but Texas isn’t Brooklyn or L.A.. Most of these “Texicans” are solid, hard-working folks who drive pickup trucks and love Jesus and BBQ. They won’t automatically embrace a half-Asian lesbian feminist with a radical agenda just because her middle name is “Ortiz.”
You can do your part to defend this Texas district, and help keep Democrats from taking over Congress, raising taxes and ramming their extremist agenda down our throats. If you live in Texas, or have friends or relatives that live there, please reach out to them on Facebook and warn them about these radical Democrats like Gina Ortiz Jones.
Today, I voted for a defense funding package that keeps the promises we made to our men and women in uniform as they confront a dangerous world. After years of cuts by Washington Democrats, we're finally giving our military the tools they need to keep us safe in the 21st century. pic.twitter.com/vrPwgc5JUJ
.@GregAbbott_TX: "We have 1,000 people moving to the state of Texas every single day and the reason is because Texas is the home of economic opportunity." pic.twitter.com/TjDVhHsZDy
“I would be happy to give [Bill Clinton] a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”
— Nina Burleigh, 1998
“Feminists keep trying to explain Weinstein in terms of power — he is the ‘patriarchy’ or whatever — but what this sordid scandal reveals is his weakness.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Nov. 21, 2017
When did the shift happen? Reading about the Sexual Harassment Apocalypse now destroying so many powerful men — Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) is the latest big name to be exposed — I keep returning to the question: “How did we get here?” The most obvious catalyst for this bonfire of feminist rage is the election of Donald Trump. So many feminists had gone “all-in” for Hillary Clinton last year, and believed that the Access Hollywood tape would prove fatal to Trump’s campaign, that the results of Nov. 8 inflicted an emotional trauma. As they worked through their feelings, they realized that a major cause of their defeat was the compromises they had made for the sake of Democrat Party coalition politics. One obvious reason Hillary lost was that her defense of Bill’s predatory sexual behavior exposed her as an untrustworthy hypocrite.
Yet the roots of this problem go back farther than the Lewinsky scandal. In 1969, Ted Kennedy left a woman to die in the back of a submerged Oldsmobile, but because he was a powerful Democrat, he was able to avoid vehicular manslaughter charges, retain his Senate seat and was even celebrated with a heroic defender of “women’s rights.” Guy Benson pointed out that a video tribute to Kennedy was shown at the 2012 Democratic National Convention and when Katie Pavlich objected to this during a CNN panel discussion, she was scolded for having the bad taste to mention that Ted Kennedy once killed a woman.
Ted Kennedy was a weakling, a specimen of moral cowardice. An alcoholic and a womanizer, Kennedy and his Senate colleague Chris Dodd once infamously made a “waitress sandwich” at a D.C. restaurant.
Likewise, Bill Clinton is an infamous weakling, unable to control his sexual appetites, and too foolish to avoid temptation. When Monica Lewinsky flashed her thong underwear at him, what did Bill do? If you’re the President of the United States, you have the power to enforce decorum in the workplace, to require the White House staff to comport themselves respectfully. Rather than to suppress Lewinsky’s lewd behavior, instead Clinton began pursuing sexual encounters with this emotionally unstable woman less than half his age. His misconduct (and hers) eventually came to light because one of his previous victims, Paula Jones, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Clinton. Jones’s lawyers learned of the Lewinsky affair, questioned Clinton about it during a sworn deposition, and he perjured himself by denying it. Clinton furthermore arguably obstructed justice by arranging to get Lewinsky out of Washington (getting her a job with Revlon, whose CEO was a major Democrat donor) and having his attorney Vernon Jordan get Lewinsky to sign a false affidavit denying her affair with Clinton.
In other words, Clinton used his political power to conceal his personal weakness and, in doing so, committed impeachable offenses.
There is no doubt that the Sexual Harassment Apocalypse will also destroy some Republicans — new allegations against Roy Moore seem to emerge every day — but on balance, these exposures mainly involve liberal men in politics, journalism and Hollywood. This is deeply ironic, of course, because Democrats campaigned in 2012 on the claim that there was a Republican “War on Women,” Hillary Clinton made feminist “empowerment” a major theme of her campaign in 2016, and it was only because Hillary lost that we have now entered this climate where feminists are willing to pour gasoline all over the machinery of male Democrat power, strike a match and burn it to the ground.
You can thank the 63 million Trump voters for this “empowerment.”
Power is beneficial when used to protect the weak and helpless, but wicked people who seek power for selfish reasons will often use dishonest claims of humanitarian intentions to mask their selfishness. Only a fool could be deceived by an argument like “Vote Democrat, Because Social Justice,” yet millions of Americans are such fools. (Hillary could have called her book It Takes a Village of Idiots to Elect a Clinton.) What liberals do, in making these pseudo-humanitarian appeals, is to drape themselves in a costume of secondhand victimhood: “Elect me,” the powerful multimillionaire Hillary Clinton essentially said, “because these other women are raped and discriminated against.”
This identity-politics argument is always false: Did Stalin’s power benefit the peasants of Russia? Did Hitler’s power benefit the average German? Did the typical citizen of Arkansas benefit from Bill Clinton’s presidency? Are black people better off because John Conyers is in Congress?
Identity politics dishonestly tells us that we are “empowered” if the person in the White House is a member of own own particular tribe. There are still millions of Irish Catholics who still vote Democrat because their Irish ancestors were Democrats and John Kennedy was a Catholic. And I was a partisan Democrat, maintaining that allegiance until I was in my mid-30s, for quite similar reasons of ancestral loyalty. There used to be fewer Republicans in the South than there are in Detroit today, and if black people ever figure out that they’re being scammed (the same way white Southerners were scammed by Democrats), this might bring about a cataclysmic political shift in American politics.
What about women? For many decades, Democrats have been the party of abortion, claiming that abortion is a synonym for “women’s rights.” And guess what? Wicked men eagerly agree with that claim.
Never forget: The Clintons and Harvey Weinstein are pro-abortion, and this was all that was necessary to make them acceptable to feminists who support the Democrat Party for that reason, and that reason only. Feminists will tolerate anything, so long as you’re pro-abortion:
Feminism is a movement devoted to destroying the family. Feminist theory condemns marriage and motherhood as institutions of “male domination,” which is why taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood is sacred to feminists: The road to “equality” is paved with dead babies.
Abortion is wrong, and its supporters are evil. Bad people do bad things, and it is not really surprising that Harvey Weinstein is a monster.
Now these monsters are being hunted down by their former feminist “allies,” and all the power and money in the world cannot save them.
Karma is a bitch, they say. And what a deeply ironic bitch she is.
Harvey Weinstein in 1997 (left); Ashley Judd in Kiss the Girls (right.
In 1997, 29-year-old Ashley Judd was one of Hollywood’s hottest young actresses, and 45-year-old Harvey Weinstein was one of the most powerful movie producers in the world. His company, Miramax Films, had been bought by Disney for $60 million in 1993, and the company’s film The English Patient had won the 1997 Oscar for Best Picture. Photos from the 1997 Oscar party show Weinstein standing next to Judd holding her hand, while her date, Vince Vaughn, hovers in the background.
At the time, Judd was working on Kiss the Girls, a detective thriller for Paramount, and Weinstein was very eager to work with her, IYKWIMAITYD. “I was sexually harassed by one of our industry’s most famous, admired-slash-reviled bosses,” Judd told Variety in a 2015 interview which did not name Weinstein as the boss in question:
I was making “Kiss the Girls” at the time, and here I was, a declared feminist. I had completed a minor in what was then called women’s studies, which we now call gender studies. And yet I did not recognize at the time what was happening to me. It took years before I could evaluate that incident and realize that there was something incredibly wrong and illegal about it. . . .
When I kept saying no to everything, there was a huge asymmetry of power and control in that room.
This will be familiar to all the women to whom this has happened. . . .
The ultimate thing when I was weaseling out of everything else was, “Will you watch me take a shower?” And all the other women, sitting around this table with me, said, “Oh my god — that’s what he said to me too.” In that moment, I told him something like, “When I win an Academy Award in one of your movies.” He said, “No, when you get nominated.” I said, “No, no, when I win an Academy Award.” That was a small moment of power when I was able to contradict him and hold to my reality. And then I got out of there. And by the way, I’ve never been offered a movie by that studio. Ever.
You can read the whole thing. What did it mean, in 1997, for Ashley Judd to be “a declared feminist”? If you’re old enough to remember the 1990s, you know that this meant primarily (a) commitment to defending the abortion industry and (b) fanatical devotion to the Democrat Party. After the Lewinsky scandal made headlines in 1998, feminist Nina Burleigh declared: “I would be happy to give [Bill Clinton] a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.” The “theocracy,” you see, is liberal codespeak for the Republican Party’s Christian conservative constituency, which opposes abortion. And this was the kind of feminism that Ashley Judd embraced as a young actress in the 1990s.
Well, guess what? Harvey Weinstein is down for that agenda, too.
May 2017: Harvey Weinstein and his wife at the 100th Anniversary Gala for Planned Parenthood pic.twitter.com/cGOG0IRBov
If you’ve ever read Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer, you understand how easily some people can be deceived and manipulated by advocates for trendy political causes. There is a line in Animal House, where the Deltas are on their way to pick up girls at a liberal women’s college:
FLOUNDER: I hear Dickinson girls are fast. What should l say?
OTTER: Just mention modern art, civil rights or folk music, and you’re in like Flynn.
It’s the same thing with feminists and abortion. Ann Coulter once observed that abortion is the holy sacrament of the Church of Liberalism, and this total commitment to promoting abortion has been profoundly harmful to the Democrat Party. Anyone with a shred of human decency knows that abortion is wrong, and the Democrats’ pro-abortion stance has the effect of driving decent people away from their party, while simultaneously attracting dangerous perverts to the party.
Say what you will, it was obviously no accident that Democrat Anthony Weiner was married to Hillary Clinton’s assistant Huma Abedin. The Clintons have always surrounded themselves with corrupt and immoral people, because no honest or moral person would support them — at least, not once they realized who the Clintons really are. It is always better to be an enemy of such people than to be their allies. Christopher Hitchens famously chronicled Bill Clinton’s betrayals of his liberal supporters in a book aptly titled, No One Left to Lie To.
Does anyone really believe, as Harvey Weinstein said, that support for the abortion industry is synonymous with “women’s rights”?
Cui bono? Who actually benefits from the abortion industry’s grisly trade? Isn’t it true that the main effect of legalized abortion, and the Contraceptive Culture in general, is to enable irresponsible men to pursue hedonistic sexual activity without being bothered by the potential burden of caring for children? And how is it in the best interest of women to be treated as “pump-and-dump” sexual commodities?
What we know of Weiner’s latest shame is that, in the wake of his 2011 scandal, the married Democrat began an online correspondence with an Indiana girl, identified by BuzzFeed as Sydney Leathers, who says she worked on President Obama’s re-election campaign. To give you an idea of Ms. Leather’s partisan and ideological commitments, after a maniac’s shooting rampage in Tucson, Arizona, she created an online petition that blamed this deadly crime on Sarah Palin, whom Ms. Leathers condemned for “inciting violence.” (In fact, the Tucson gunman was a schizophrenic inspired by a leftwing conspiracy “documentary.”) Only a liberal girl could admire a creep like Weiner.
Being the pro-abortion party makes Democrats so profoundly immoral that we are scarcely surprised by their dishonesty, corruption and scandalous personal misconduct. And, with a nod toward some of my #NeverTrump Republican friends, this is also a danger to the GOP. The degradation of public morality, in which Democrats have been enthusiastically complicit, has not been without it harmful effects on Republicans. Confronted by a corrupt Democrat machine (including their dishonest party “operatives with bylines” in the media), some in the GOP figure they can play by the same rules. If Democrats were willing to defend Bill Clinton, who was plausibly accused of rape, after all, how can they condemn Donald Trump’s boorish behavior? And so the blatant immorality of Democrats tends to erode moral standards among Republicans as well. This danger cannot be ignored.
The fate of Democrats in recent years should be a warning to any Republican who is tempted to emulate them. Whatever selfish gains the Clintons derived from their corruption has come at a painful cost to the Democrat Party’s political influence, as I recently explained:
Democrats have lost power at every level, as Republicans not only control the White House and both houses of Congress, but also hold the governorships of 33 states, and 68 of 99 state legislative chambers. In 32 states, which are home to 61% of the U.S. population, the GOP controls both houses of the state legislature. Hillary Clinton’s supporters like to point out she won the popular vote, with 66 million votes to Trump’s 63 million, yet nearly a quarter of her total — more than 16 million votes — were concentrated in just three states: California, New York and Illinois. Lacking effective leadership, Democrats have become deranged and desperate, and are being attracted to lunatic fringe movements.
Of course, it is possible — likely, even — that an anti-Trump backlash will reduce some of that GOP advantage in next month’s off-year elections, but the long-term trend over the past 25 years will probably continue: No matter how much Democrats increase their margins in big cities and the coastal states, these gains are more than offset by Republican gains among suburban and rural Middle American voters. Consider these three data points from Wisconsin exit polls:
“Family values” still matter. When push comes to shove, marriage and religion are decisive influences in electoral politics. When we look at these factors in Wisconsin — a state that Trump won by a narrow margin — the only demographic groups that went for Clinton were (a) unmarried women and (b) those who never attend religious services.
Once you begin extrapolating from those data points — and if you understand the selection effects involved — you see why the pro-abortion feminism of Ashley Judd must ultimately be fatal to the Democrats.
Ashley Judd doesn’t have any children. Indeed, if you look at the four women featured on the cover of Ms. magazine in 2003 — “This Is What a Feminist Looks Like” — you find that two of them (Camryn Manheim and Whoopi Goldberg) have one child each, while Judd and Margaret Cho have zero, so that their average is 0.5 children per woman. Because feminist ideology is anti-marriage, anti-motherhood and anti-religion, the Democrat Party’s embrace of feminism creates a long-term problem for the party. And the rising feminist resentment toward hypocritical male “allies” like Harvey Weinstein will only exacerbate this problem.
There was a time when liberal feminism attracted males whose idea of “women’s rights” were similar to Weinstein’s, but in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s feminist-themed campaign, an angry anti-male radicalism has taken hold among women on the Left. The “male feminist” type of left-wing man is now openly mocked and scorned for his attempts to get laid by spewing talking-points about women’s “empowerment,” etc.
If a young man is interested in politics, is there any reason he should support a Democrat Party controlled by enraged man-hating feminists? After the defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016, which ought to have been seen as a lesson in why feminism fails, Democrats are instead doubling down. They are talking about nominating Sen. Kamala Harris in 2020, reinforcing the message that men are no longer welcome in the Democrat Party. Taking a look at exit polls in Ohio — where Trump won male voters by a 23-point margin — it’s clear that this message is already well understood, the same way the “Black Lives Matter” movement made clear that Democrats are against white people. All signs indicate that the Democrat Party’s agenda will become even more extreme, as they embrace the radical “Resistance” movement. And who can forget Ashley Judd’s “Nasty Woman” rant at the Women’s March on Washington?
Yes — that is what a feminist looks like, and that’s also what the future of the Democrat Party looks like, if they have a future at all.
“We want to end gender inequality — and to do that we need everyone to be involved. This is the first campaign of its kind at the UN: we want to try and galvanize as many men and boys as possible to be advocates for gender equality. . . . I was appointed six months ago and the more I have spoken about feminism the more I have realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop.”
— Emma Watson, Sept. 20, 2014
In the fall of 2014, actress Emma Watson went to the United Nations to announce the “He for She” campaign, aimed at encouraging men to support feminism. The timing of this event was not coincidental, nor was it a coincidence that Ms. Watson was chosen to lead this initiative.
From age 10 to 21, Ms. Watson portrayed the heroic Hermione Granger in the film adaptations of J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter children’s fantasy novels. Tens of millions of young people grew up cheering for Ms. Watson in movie theaters, and if anyone could mobilize youth in favor of feminism, she was the one who could do it. However, almost no one at the time asked the obvious question: Why? Or rather, why now?
Why had the United Nations decided to launch this project? Why was it considered necessary, in 2014, to “rebrand” feminism as a movement that men should support, with Ms. Watson as the spokeswoman? Why was the U.N. leadership concerned that feminism was considered “man-hating”? Why did six months elapse between Ms. Watson’s appointment as “ambassador” for this U.N. project and her September 2014 speech? Ms. Watson asserted that this was her own idea, because “my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word,” because feminists “are seen as too strong, too aggressive, isolating, anti-men and, unattractive,” leading her to ask, “Why is the word such an uncomfortable one?” Had anyone ever said any such thing about Ms. Watson? Or did she have in mind someone else who might be affected by this negative perception of feminism? And if so, who? Continue reading Liberal Feminism, Radical Feminism and the Ultimate Failure of All Feminism →
“I think it’s really important to remember that it is an incredible problem that . . . 53% of white women in this country voted for Donald Trump which means that they’re not only voting against the interests of their sisters, of women who may not look like them, who they may not understand but whose rights are just as important, but also remember that they are in that case voting against their own best interest. To me a part of feminism — it’s almost like being a parent to a teenager where they’re so mad at you, they think you’re such a piece of crap and you’re like, I know you hate me right now but the reason I’m doing this is because I love you and I want us all to be safe. . . .
I think what’s really hard, obviously it pains me as a Caucasian women to think about how many women didn’t think about women who looked different or had different life experiences than them. They didn’t look outside their own back yard when they made the choice to vote for Donald Trump. . . .
I also think it’s really important to understand so many women aren’t raised with the rhetoric of self-empowerment. The messages they’re hearing from Donald Trump may be very similar to the messages they’ve always heard from their fathers, from their brothers, from their husbands. They haven’t been given the message that they do matter. And so, while I think we have an incredible amount of work to do with enlightening those women, I also have sympathy for the societal structures that keep them from understanding what they need to keep themselves safe.
Other than the fact that Lena Dunham is the daughter of rich parents who leveraged her connections to land a contract for a low-rated feminist “comedy” on HBO, why would anyone care about her opinions? What has Lena Dunham ever done that would make anyone think that American women are in need of her “enlightening” through feminism? Does her “rhetoric of self-empowerment” include fingering her baby sister and lying about being raped by a Republican?
She’s a 76-year-old white woman whose father was the boss of the corrupt Democrat machine in Baltimore during the segregation era, and being married to a multimillionaire California real-estate investor, she’s one of the top 10 richest members of Congress. Democrats in Congress couldn’t have picked a more out-of-touch leader if they had tried. The geriatric liberal, whose political beliefs are like a fossil of the 1988 Dukakis campaign, apparently cannot understand why Democrats keep losing.
“Republicans are now in control of a record 67 (68 percent) of the 98 partisan state legislative chambers in the nation,” as Barbara Hollingsworth reported. “In 24 of the 32 states with Republican-controlled legislatures, voters have also elected Republican governors.”
While giving a press briefing to reporters, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the GOP’s push to defund the taxpayer funded Planned Parenthood a “manhood thing.”
During her press briefing, Pelosi fielding questions about Republican plans to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and remove taxpayer funding for abortion provider Planned Parenthood.
At the end of her remarks, Pelosi said, “Let me end on this note. Of all the things that they could be doing in a reconciliation bill — job creation, deficit reduction — no, forget that. What are they doing in this bill? Overturning the Affordable Care Act, undermining the health security and financial stability of America’s working families, and defunding Planned Parenthood. That’s their — that’s their manhood thing,” Pelosi said while shaking her hands.
“You know, defunding Planned Parenthood. How can they establish that as a priority unless they’re coming at all of this from a very ideological stand-point?” she asked.
Here, Ms. Pelosi, let me explain briefly: Planned Parenthood is America’s largest abortion provider. Many millions of Americans (who, not coincidentally, are eligible to vote) believe that abortion is morally wrong and should be illegal. However, even if you aren’t in favor of outlawing abortion, you may not think that giving federal taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood is a good idea. To repeat something that I keep saying, but which no Democrat seems capable of understanding: The national debt is now approaching $20 trillion — that’s trillion with a “T,” meaning $20,000,000,000,000 — and interest payments on the national debt cost $223 billion, or 6 percent of the federal budget, in 2015. So for every dollar the IRS collects from taxpayers, only 94 cents is available for current needs, and the annual budget deficit in fiscal year 2015 was $439 billion out of $3.7 trillion.
When you have a budget deficit of more than $400 billion, why spend half a billion dollars annually to fund Planned Parenthood, an organization whose business is about killing future taxpayers? Also, Planned Parenthood is a major donor to the Democrat Party, and why should Republicans in Congress give money to their worst enemies?
Despite the spectacular failure of ObamaCare, which has driven up health insurance premiums everywhere, Nancy Pelosi still can’t understand why anyone would want to repeal ObamaCare, and her propaganda phrase, “America’s working families,” is the exact opposite of reality. “Working families” — married people with jobs — generally had health insurance before ObamaCare was enacted, and have found themselves paying higher premiums because of the mandates imposed by ObamaCare.
ObamaCare wasn’t about “working families,” it was about mandating and subsidizing coverage for the kind of people who don’t have jobs or don’t have families, i.e., the typical Democrat voter. Republicans officials may not be rude enough to actually say this, but the people who vote Republican are not so stupid they can’t figure it out. What were Democrats really talking about when they invoked “pre-existing conditions” as an urgent cause to change our healthcare system? AIDS? Hepatitis? Cocaine addiction? “Gender dysphoria”?
During the first four years of the Obama administration, the government added nearly 6 million new recipients of federal SSI disability payments, more than doubling the number on the disability lists, while workforce participation rates fell to the lowest in American history. Democrats see nothing wrong with this, because moochers and malingerers tend to vote Democrat, whereas taxpayers with jobs tend to vote Republican.
Like I said, voters aren’t nearly as stupid as Nancy Pelosi assume them to be, and Democrats being the Baby-Killing Welfare Moocher Party is the fundamental cause of Donald Trump’s election. Yet the failure of the Democrat agenda, both as policy and as politics, is not something that the party’s elderly liberal leadership can admit, and therefore Pelosi is compelled by her partisanship to offer scapegoating rationalizations and counterfactual explanations, including blaming George W. Bush (who left the White House eight years ago) for the federal deficit under Obama.
Let’s be frank. After this week’s electoral explosion, liberalism faces years in the wilderness. It’s not just that the president-elect is Donald Trump. It’s that a Democratic Party that as recently as Monday imagined it had forged an electoral coalition sufficiently solid to stand for decades now lies in shambles. In 2018, the party must defend an astonishing 25 seats in their Senate caucus, many of them in states that Trump carried. “It’s going to be a disaster,” said one Democratic strategist — and that was back when people thought Hillary Clinton was a shoo-in. Republicans control a record 69 of 99 state legislative chambers, and wound up with at least 33 governorships, the most since 1922. In short, the Democrats’ exile is likely to be lengthy.
It would be a stupid blunder for conservative, however, to think that the current “shambles” of the Democrat Party means we’re on our way to the Permanent Republican Majority once envisioned by Karl Rove. Such complacent hubris is exactly how the Bush era ended in political disaster — voters handing Congress over to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid’s Democrats in 2006, Barack Obama winning the presidency in 2008. Both the Trump administration and GOP leaders in Congress will have to work hard — and be smart — to retain the support of the 60 million Americans who voted Republican on Nov. 8.
Well, these sober-minded reflections should not dampen our good cheer, and Happy Fun Victory Week means we can enjoy the schadenfreude of watching liberals in agony over their unexpected defeat.
Back in 1984, when I was a young Democrat, I voted for Walter Mondale for president, and wasn’t happy that he lost. Back then, however, we didn’t have Twitter or Facebook, so we couldn’t instantaneously broadcast our expressions of despair to the world. Old folks back then (I was 25) didn’t give a damn about my opinion, but now every young kid with a laptop can play Internet pundit and they’re pushing the panic button: “OMG! Trump! Get an IUD before it’s too late!”
Who told you this? Where did this absurd meme originate? Didn’t your parents warn you against believing everything you read on the Internet? Was it true, as Gabriella Paiella of New York Magazine told readers mere hours after Hillary conceded defeat, that “everyone” was urging women to get IUDs? No, it started with Erin Gloria Ryan, who majored in English at Notre Dame, Class of ’05, and hit the panic button Nov. 2, before Election Day. . . .
Read the whole thing at The Patriarch Tree. Once upon a time, a Democrat told America that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Now the only thing Democrats offer America is . . . fear itself.
Did you know that abortion drugs — Mifeprex or Mifepristone, originally known or RU486, a/k/a “the morning-after pill” — can kill you? Dozens of women have reportedly died as a result of complications from using Mifepristone, but this is a minor “side effect” compared to destroying the lives of some 2 million unborn children, which is what the drug is intended to do. Feminists hate babies and want to kill babies, and if a few women occasionally die in the process? Never mind. Feminists don’t care.
Feminism is a death cult, and the abortion industry donates millions to the Democrat Party, which means that the Obama administration does whatever Planned Parenthood tells them to do. The poweful influence of the abortion lobby was demonstrated once again this week:
Because of the high failure rate and the risks involved with RU-486 in later pregnancies, the FDA limited approval for use only in the first 49 days from the start of a woman’s last menstrual period. Planned Parenthood, by its own admission, ignores this limitation.
Now, the Food and Drug Administration announced on Wednesday, that it had given into to Planned Parenthood’s demands and altered the approved use of Mifeprex, (also known as Mifepristone or RU486), to come in line with off-label protocols used by Planned Parenthood and other abortion businesses. The FDA has announced that it is extending the allowed time period for use of the abortion drug to 70 days.
But, according to the clinical trial submitted to the FDA for approval, the RU-486 regimen fails in 1 out of 12 women with pregnancies less than or equal to 49 days. Those failures, however, increase to 1 out of every 6 women with pregnancies just one week advanced (50-56 days), and further still to nearly 1 out of every 4 pregnancies at 57-63 days gestational age. When using RU-486, 1 out of 100 women with pregnancies less than or equal to 49 days will require emergency surgery; however, this number increases dramatically to 1 out of every 11 women with pregnancies of 57-63 days gestational age.
A spokesman for a leading pro-life group says this FDA change will cause more abortions with the abortion drugs and more failures that kill or injure women.
“The abortion pill is a huge cash cow for the Abortion Cartel, but the process of abortion using the abortion pill cocktail of two drugs, Mifeprex and Cytotec, is long, painful, bloody, and unpredictable for women and deadly for pre-born children,” Troy Newman of Operation Rescue told LifeNews.com. . . .
Women developing infections from usage of the RU 486 abortion drug experienced endometritis (involving the lining of the womb), pelvic inflammatory disease (involving the nearby reproductive organs such as the fallopian tubes or ovaries), and pelvic infections with sepsis (a serious systemic infection that has spread beyond the reproductive organs).
